Multimodal Analysis in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual

Multimodal Analysis in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual It s not just cars anymore! Jamie Parks, AICP HCAT Conference May 9-10, 2011

Multimodal LOS in the 2010 HCM History and background Overview of methods Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Example applications

Level of Service Describes user perceptions of transportation facilities A-F scale Defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Many jurisdictions require LOS analysis for transportation studies What s measured matters!

Why Measure Level of Service? Provides a consistent, systematic evaluation of existing conditions Puts results in terms that transportation professionals and the public can understand Provides an objective way to identify needs and prioritize improvements Provides a way to evaluate different improvement types and cross sections

Multimodal Analysis in the HCM: 1950-1985 Manuals 1950 HCM Streetcars and buses impact vehicle capacity at traffic signals Pedestrian impacts on vehicle capacity addressed indirectly 1965 HCM LOS concept introduced Short (11-page) chapter on bus transit, with little quantitative info 1985 HCM Pedestrian and bicycle chapters introduced

History of Multimodal Analysis in the HCM: HCM2000 Expanded pedestrian chapter Service measures: space per pedestrian, average delay, average travel speed Expanded bicycle chapter Service measures: average travel speed, average delay, hindrance Revised transit chapter Four passenger-oriented service measures: frequency, hours of service, passenger load, reliability

NCHRP 3-92 Production of the 2010 HCM HCM s 5 th Major Revision (1950, 1965, 1985, 2000) Project began in October 2007 2010 HCM shipped in March 2011 Significant changes: Integrated Multimodal Approach Multi-volume re-organization Incorporates New Research Increased Emphasis of Alternative Tools

HCM Focus Group Findings Many jurisdictions don t require multimodal analyses Therefore, they are not performed Jurisdictions that do want to perform bike/ped analyses don t find the current HCM capacity-based measures useful Maryland & Florida use measures of user comfort Most bike & ped facilities don t have capacity issues No need to analyze them using HCM procedures

Multimodal LOS Measure Issues Current HCM method focuses on speed, delay, and space NCHRP 3-70 research (and intuition) suggest these aren t the key factors Auto volumes highly important to bike & ped service quality HCM 2010 considers a broader range of factors for ped and bike analysis HCM2000: Ped LOS A HCM2000: Ped LOS D 10

2010 HCM Approach Focus on the traveler perspective Quality of Service: perception of how well a facility operates from traveler perspective Allow evaluation of intermodal interactions and trade-offs Mode Affected Auto Ped Bike Transit Impacting Mode Auto Ped Bike Transit Auto & HV volumes Turning patterns Lane configurations Auto & HV volumes Cycle length Driver yielding Turn conflicts Traffic separation Auto & HV volumes Auto & HV speed On-street parking Turn conflicts Traffic separation Auto volumes Signal timing Minimum green time Turn conflicts Mid-block crossings Sidewalk crowding Crosswalk crowding Cross-flows Shared-path conflicts Min. green time Turn conflicts Mid-block xings Ped. env. quality Minimum green time Turn conflicts Mid-block crossings Turn conflicts Passing delay Shared-path conflicts Bicyclist yielding Bike volumes Bike env. quality Bike volumes Heavy vehicle Blocking delay Signal priority Heavy vehicle Transit stop queues Stop cross-flows Vehicle yielding Heavy vehicle Blocking delay Tracks Bus volumes 11

Multimodal LOS in the 2010 HCM History and background Overview of methods Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Example applications

Traveler-Perception Models Recent research has quantified traveler perceptions of multimodal facilities to develop QOS indexes Indexes incorporate multiple factors (e.g., volumes, lane widths, etc.) Models allow more service-quality factors to be considered than traditional HCM measures Models set LOS thresholds based on survey responses to actual conditions Anticipated that future research will develop similar indexes for other facilities (e.g. roundabouts)

Perception Models LOS based on a weighted index Combination of multiple variables Example: Ped Signal LOS = 0.00569 (RTOR+PermLefts) + 0.00013 (TrafVol x TrafSpeed) + 0.0681 (# LanesCrossed 0.514 ) + 0.0401ln(PedDelay) RTCI (0.0027PerpTrafVol 0.1946) + 1.7806 LOS Ped LOS Score A 2.00 B >2.00 2.75 C >2.75 3.50 D >3.50 4.25 E >4.25 5.00 F >5.00

Service Measures in the 2010 HCM System Element Service Measure Provided Chapter Auto Ped Bike Transit Freeway Facility 10 Basic Freeway Segment 11 Freeway Weaving Segment 12 Fwy. Merge/Diverge Seg. 13 Multilane Highway 14 Two-Lane Highway 15 Urban Street Facility 16 Urban Street Segment 17 Signalized Intersection 18 Two-Way Stop 19 All-Way Stop 20 Roundabout 21 Interchange Ramp Term. 22 Off-Street Ped-Bike Facility 23 - Based on traditional service measure - Based on traveler perception index 15

Multimodal LOS Defined for Urban Streets MMLOS measures the degree to which the urban street design and operations meets the needs of each mode s users Four level of service results for the street: Auto, Transit, Bicycle, Pedestrian A combined LOS is not calculated Conceptual MMLOS Results Mode AM Peak PM Peak Auto C E Transit B C Bicycle D C Pedestrian C D

MMLOS Urban Street Applications segment facility Segments All four modes Signalized Intersections Auto, ped and bike mode Facility All four modes 17

Multimodal LOS in the 2010 HCM History and background Overview of methods Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Example applications

Pedestrian LOS in the 2000 HCM LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F

Pedestrian LOS in the 2000 HCM What does it not include? Motor vehicle traffic volume Traffic speed Intersection delay Separation from traffic Adjacent land uses Driver yielding behavior Pedestrian HCM 2000 material retained, but supplemented

LOS at Unsignalized Crossings Estimates pedestrian delay Allows consideration of different crossing treatments Based on 4 factors Traffic volume - # of lanes crossed Crossing distance - Motorist yield rate

LOS at Unsignalized Crossings Example: 2-lane arterial with marked crosswalk, but nobody is yielding Inputs: 1,000 peak-hour vehicles 2 lanes crossed 30 feet crossing distance 10% yield rate Output: Average delay = 44 seconds Ped LOS = E

LOS at Unsignalized Crossings Example (cont.): Install rapid-flash beacons to improve driver compliance Inputs: 1,000 peak-hour vehicles 2 lanes crossed 30 feet crossing distance 80% yield rate Output: Average delay = 6 seconds Ped LOS = B

Pedestrian LOS: Urban Street Segments Factors include: Outside travel lane width (+) Bicycle lane/shoulder width (+) Buffer presence (e.g., on-street parking, street trees) (+) Sidewalk presence and width (+) Volume and speed of motor vehicle traffic in outside lane (-) Pedestrian density considered separately Worse of density LOS/ segment LOS used to determine LOS 24

Pedestrian LOS: Signalized Intersections Factors include: Permitted left turn and right-turn-on-red volumes (-) Cross-street motor vehicle volumes and speeds (-) Crossing length (-) Average pedestrian delay (-) Right-turn channelizing island presence (+) 25

Multimodal LOS in the 2010 HCM History and background Overview of methods Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Example applications

Common Factors Affecting Cyclists Proximity of bicyclist to motor vehicles Speed of traffic Volume of motor vehicle traffic Percent heavy vehicles Pavement condition

Bicycle LOS: Urban Street Segments Factors include: Volume and speed of traffic in outside travel lane (-) Heavy vehicle percentage (-) Pavement condition (+) Bicycle lane presence (+) Bicycle lane, shoulder, and outside lane widths (+) Number of driveways (-) On-street parking presence and utilization (+/-) 28

Bicycle LOS: Signalized Intersections Factors included: Width of outside through lane and bicycle lane (+) Cross-street width (-) Motor vehicle traffic volume in the outside lane (-) 29

Bicycle LOS E No shoulder 12.5 foot lane 50 MPH 2 lanes, undivided 8,000 ADT 7% trucks

Bicycle LOS B 9.5 foot shoulder 12 foot lane 45 MPH 2 Lanes, undivided 17,000 ADT 8% Trucks

Bicycle LOS Road Diet Example ADT = 13,500 vpd Lanes = 2 Pavement = 4 (good) W t W l Speed = 12 ft = 0 ft = 30 mph 12' 12' 12' 12' 48' BLOS Evaluation: LOS score Category 3.58 D

Bicycle LOS - After ADT = 13,500 vpd Lanes = 1 Pavement = 4 (good) W t = 17 ft W l = 5 ft SP p = 30 mph 5' 12' 14' 12' 5' 48' BLOS Evaluation: LOS score Category 2.07 B

Bicycle LOS Model Notes Heavily dependent on shoulder/bike lane width Based on perceptions of typical bicyclist Cyclists are diverse Represents typical conditions, not anomalies Does not include slope Does not capture emerging facility types Shared lane markings Colored pavement Bike boxes Cycle tracks

Shared-Use Path Bicycle LOS Calibrated user perception index for bikes on shared-use paths 4 key variables: # of meeting events with other users # of delayed passing attempts Path width Presence of centerline

Shared-Use Path LOS Uses volumes of user types to estimate meetings and passings Based on assumed speed distributions for each user type Procedure is complex, but Excel calculator is available

Multimodal LOS in the 2010 HCM History and background Overview of methods Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Example applications

2010 HCM Transit Objectives New transit LOS measure desired Single measure to facilitate comparisons with other modes and for compatibility with HCM LOS thresholds tied to user satisfaction - LOS grades mean the same thing across modes Opportunity for comparing impacts of other modes, where impacts exist

Approach Develop a model that relates LOS to factors that: Have been shown to be important to customer satisfaction Can be readily quantified Can be related to ridership, or changes in ridership The more satisfying the service, the more likely people are to use it Based on on-board survey results showing important factors Summary of On-Board Survey Factors Rank Virginia 2B Virginia 38B Portland 14 Portland 44 Florida 18 1 Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency 2 Wait time Reliability Close to home Reliability Wait time 3 Reliability Wait time Reliability Close to home Close to home 4 Close to home Close to dest. Wait time Close to dest. Reliability 5 Service span Close to home Close to dest. Wait time Service span 6 Close to dest. Service span Service span 7 Friendly drivers

Model Inputs Only includes factors inside the right-of-way and which can be affected by agency actions Frequency Speed (travel time rate) Reliability & stop amenities (excess wait time) Crowding (perceived travel time rate adjustment) Pedestrian LOS

Model Output Transit LOS score A function of: - Transit wait/ride score (weighted 89%) - Pedestrian LOS (weighted 11%) Addresses all three trip components Weightings based on on-board survey results that found that walk-tothe-stop satisfaction accounted for 11% of overall satisfaction Details in NCHRP Report 616

Example Application: Portland

Multimodal LOS in the 2010 HCM History and background Overview of methods Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Example applications

Data Requirements Typical Transportation Analysis Data Collection Efforts Peak Hour Traffic Counts - Passenger Vehicles - Pedestrians - Bicycles - Heavy Vehicles Roadway Inventory - Sidewalks - Bicycle Lanes - Transit Stops/Amenities - Transit Schedule - Posted Roadway Speed - Roadway Cross-Section - Median Treatment - Illumination Signalized Intersection Data - Signal Timing Sheets - Signal Phasing - Right-turn on Red

Data Requirements Additional MMLOS Data Collection Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Counts - Number of Vehicles by Lane Roadway Inventory - Length of Roadway Segment - Roadway Cross-Section Dimensions Sidewalks Landscape Strip Bicycle Lanes On-Street Parking Travel Lane Median - Number of Trees/Bushes - Percent Occupancy of Parking - Pavement Condition Rating - Number of Driveways within Segment Transit Inventory - Bus Occupancy - Transit Reliability - Average Trip Length

Example NoMa Transportation Plan Rapidly developing neighborhood near downtown DC Project for DDOT to proactively and strategically prepare for change Improve safety, comfort, and efficiency of all transportation modes

MMLOS in NoMa Proposed modifications included: Lane reductions 2-way to 1-way couplets Bike lanes Sidepaths/cycle tracks Sidewalk widening

Analysis Applied to 6 key corridors Analyze existing and no build conditions Assess the impacts of proposed cross-sections Demonstrate benefits to stakeholders Used research quality spreadsheet Analysis will be easier with software

Example: K Street No Build High traffic volumes No bike lane Peak-hour restricted parking Ped LOS = D Bike LOS = D

Example: K Street Build (One-way conversion) Dedicated bike facility No sidewalk widening Ped LOS = D Bike LOS = B

Results Do nothing and LOS gets worse Proposed cross-sections have significant multi-modal benefits Bicycle LOS Pedestrian LOS

Russell St Example 2: Russell Street, Missoula, Montana 1.5 Mile-long Study Area 1 of 5 Bridge Crossings 2/3 lane cross section with limited pedestrian/bicycle facilities 20,000 25,000 ADT Important bike commute route Commercial and residential uses N Broadway St 3rd St 5 th St 14 th St Mount Ave

Alternative Analysis Cross-section and Traffic Control 53

Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit LOS Summary Overall LOS for Alternatives and Options DEIS Alternatives Alt 1 No Build Existing 3 Lane Volumes 5 Lane Volumes Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5-R Option 6 Bike LOS - Southbound F F F F F E E F Bike LOS Northbound F F F F F E E F Ped LOS - Southbound D D E C C C C D Ped LOS Northbound D D D C C C C C Transit LOS - Southbound D D D D D D D D Transit LOS Northbound D D D D D D D D Legend LOS = A, B, or C LOS = D LOS = E or F

Overall Analysis Summary DEIS Alternatives Alt 1 (No Build) Performance Measure 3-Lanes 5-Lanes Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5-R Option 6 Intersection Operations (LOS) 6 7 3 3 1 2 5 Corridor Operations (Travel Time) 2 3 4 4 1 4 7 Safety (Predicted Average Crash Frequencies) 6 7 2* 1* 4 3 5 Pedestrian LOS 6 7 3 3 1 1 5 Bicycle LOS 5 7 3 3 1 2 6 Transit LOS 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 * Best ranking due in large part to lower traffic volume scenario (3 lane demand versus 5 lane demand).

MMLOS Sample: NE 3 rd Street (Business 97) Five-Lane Cross-Section Posted Speed of 35 mph Bicycle Lanes Curb-tight Sidewalks Multiple Driveways Throughout Long Traffic Signal Cycle Lengths ADT Approximately 20,500 5.4% Trucks (AM) 3.5% Trucks (PM) 85-Foot Cross-Section BAT Route 1 40-Minute Headways No Shelters or Benches

Data Forms: Segment Data

Data Forms: Roadway Cross-Section

Data Forms: Traffic Data

Data Forms: Transit Data

Analysis Results: Existing 3 rd Street Section

3 rd Street Strategies and Goals Freight Route? Primary Regional Connection? Primary Transit Route? Pedestrian Corridor? Bicycle Corridor?

Cross-Section Option 1: Increased ROW

Cross-Section Option 2: Removal Of Bicycle Lanes

Cross-Section Option 3: Removal of Travel Lane

Cross-Section Option 4: Transit Improvements

Cross-Section Option 5: Access Management

Summary of Options

Other Effect of Lane Widths on Capacity Saturation flow rate the same for10-foot and 12-foot lanes No capacity-basis for denying 10-foot lanes HCM 2000 HCM 2010 Lane Width Sat. Flow Adj. Factor 9 0.90 10 0.93 11 0.97 12 1.00 13 1.03 14 1.07 Lane Width Sat. Flow Adj. Factor < 10 0.96 10 12.9 1.00 13 1.04

HCM 2010 Summary Non-auto modes will be integrated into the 2010 HCM far better than before Urban street LOS method will facilitate complete streets evaluations Relative service quality provided for each mode s travelers Trade-offs of different improvement alternatives or future demand scenarios can be evaluated

HCM 2010 Summary (cont...) Provides agencies a way to quantify the relative benefits and disadvantages of roadway cross-section standards and design modifications Provides a methodology for multi-modal performance standards or alternative mobility standards Some important policy considerations: Vehicular/Pedestrian/Bicycle/Transit Hierarchy? Multi-modal LOS standards?

Future Considerations Address additional facilities Roundabouts Ramp terminals Others Incorporate emerging treatments Cycle tracks Sharrows Others Connect to safety research Learn from practical applications!

Questions? Thank you! Jamie Parks jparks@kittelson.com (410) 347-9610